Wikipedia

Talk:2017 Westminster attack/Archive 3

< Talk:2017 Westminster attack
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Nihonjoe in topic Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Still terrorism now that the motive is known to be unknown?

Latest comment: 7 years ago63 comments11 people in discussion

It was initially investigated as terrorism, so we called it a terrorist attack, per the RS of the day. But now that the investigation's run cold, and police have found no evidence of this and declared the motive may have died with him, is there any reason to continue calling it a terrorist attack? I don't see it, but figure deleting the claim is controversial enough for discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The last time I looked, the text was pretty good, balanced, nuanced etc. The more problematic matter is categories (and of cource this incident is already on every possible 'list' article). Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The lead sentence is usually used to define the topic, and is far more prevalent than the categories at the bottom. It currently begins "On 22 March 2017 a terrorist attack in London...". No nuance, just a straight-up declaration of fact. It wasn't as wrong earlier, when that still looked possible, if not proven. But it's wronger now that it's been tested by police, and the disclosed facts don't even suggest it's true. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposed amendment:
On 22 March 2017 52-year-old Briton Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians on the pavement along the south side of Westminster Bridge and Bridge Street in London, resulting in more than 50 people being injured, three of them fatally. After the car crashed into the perimeter fence of the Westminster Palace grounds, he abandoned it and ran into New Palace Yard where he fatally stabbed an unarmed police officer.
Same known facts as before. The bit after this bit is OK, too, just copied this much to show Wikilink rearrangement. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd considered deleting, but decided it gave context to the Investigation and Reactions section. Without the climate of fear being what it was, there might have been drug raids and anti-knife grandstanding instead. In ten years, drugs and knives might be the scourge again, and younger readers might wonder why this particular hubbub erupted.
Of course, that's just later. It's not very useful while ISIS is still a thing people generally hear about every day. Should have some Background section, however it's rewritten. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please look at the news sources and see that a majority of them refer to it as a terrorist incident. WP:CENSOR. Nergaal (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-terror-attack-lasted-just-10099664 Nergaal (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You are basing your edit warring on the Daily Mirror? Excellent. - The Bounder (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with censorship at all, but trying to capture a balance between the conclusion the sources all originally jumped to, and the more measured response currently being adopted by the people undertaking the investigation who are trying to establish the motive. It may well be that they find a link to terrorism, in which case the article can reflect that; it may be that they conclude it was not a terrorist act but the action of someone mentally disturbed, or with a simple criminal intent: we will reflect that too. - The Bounder (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and the balance is that an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of sources call it terrorism. Look at the link I provided. Nergaal (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
A red-top tabloid? No thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Show me a source where police said this is NOT terrorism. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile here are some more red tabloids: http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/london-terror-attack-police-have-found-no-evidence-khalid-masood-had-links-to-is-or-alqaeda/news-story/50b1bc1531a86baef851b5e649104aa8 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/khalid-masood-wife-london-terror-attacker-adrian-russell-ajao-condemns-actions-westminster-bridge-a7653186.html http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/27/europe/london-attack/ Nergaal (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
[1] Do you think you could possibly stop edit warring and respect the consensus that has been outlined in this thread? - The Bounder (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I gave you 3 links from the past few hours, you gave a link containing "In depth: Westminster terror attack". WP:CENSOR. Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You asked for a link where the police were distancing themselves from saying terrorism: I provided it. At the end of the day journalists are lazy creatures who attach key words to their reports so the great unwashed can understand them. The police are working on a more nuanced approach. In any event the WP:POINTY piling of too many citations at the head of the article is ridiculous, let alone the fact that you haven't even been bothered to format them properly. Your edit warring against the consensus on the page tells us all we need to know. - The Bounder (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Eight refs after two words - all unformatted bare links? How POINTY (and pointless) can you get? - The Bounder (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
NO, I said a link where they say it is NOT a terrorist attack. Distancing is not negating it. I gave you an absolute majority of links calling it terrorist attack, including from the past couple of hours. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
YES (if you just want to shout pointless words around): they are not calling it a terrorist attack. They are withholding any classification until they are sure. You go ahead and pile ridiculous citations after the first two words, but the official body investigating the matter is going one way, and the mass of lazy journalists are pointing their language another. As you are continuing to ignore the consensus, I'm going to step away: you are obviously not in receiving mode on this. - The Bounder (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@The Bounder: So if the authorities are withholding classification (for whatever reason) your solution is pretend it is not a terrorist attack? Why not say "reported as a terror attack but authorities are withholding from classifying as such"? Nergaal (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just said I am stepping away: please do not ping me back to discuss your OR. - The Bounder (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Of the 7 citations following the word 'terrorist attack', 6 of them actually appear to say 'terror attack', not the same thing. Pincrete (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed that. Nergaal (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Compromise ?: Remove the second word, but towards the end of the lead put "initially treated by authorities as... later police announced" sentence. This issue may yet yo-yo back and forth for months. Pincrete (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Major news sources report it as a terror attack. This "compromise" ignores that. Nergaal (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You are assuming terror=terrorist/ism, it doesn't. 'Terror' is general and is often used by news sources when they don't know what exactly to say. Whereas 'terrorist/ism' has a more precise meaning, often defined in the law of a country. The difference is as real as 'murder' and 'murderous'. My compromise acknowledges the whole story, while also saying we now don't know. Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you talking about the current version of the article? Nergaal (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I was talking about 'terrorist attack' but replacing it with 'terror attack' simply plays into using a media word that implies the same thing, without stating it, but which actually means nothing. I'm in favour of putting a nuanced account towards the end of the lead and NO adjective in the opening sentence. The debate is probably not yet over as to what extent/in what ways this was or was not terrorist in nature. Pincrete (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My point is that even some of the most "relaxed" media sources out there still call it a terror attack. The UK government has it's own rationale to portray the attack in a certain way, but that should not result in completely removing the perspectives of the legitimate sources I've listed. Nergaal (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure they are, and will continue to do so, since 'terror attack' is essentially meaningless. My point is that we should be clear about the whole narrative, which is approx. originally treated as 'terrorist', now it's a "we don't know at the moment" situation. Pincrete (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Evidence of politicians manipulating the media for their own ends ought to be highlighted if there are reliable sources that suggest this. Usually, they are all too happy to go along with this. Here we have an incident where somebody with dark skin and a beard went on a rampage with a car, and before anything was established, government politicians (or was it the police) had already rushed to label this as "terrorism". In fact, all the signs currently point to some lone wolf who had a history of mental instability. Let's not forget the British govt is in total disarray, and the terrorism narrative happens to suit their ends. We should therefore be more open to relaxing the "terrorism" label. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Some people when they go on a killing spree are labeled psychopaths and are labeled terrorists. That is certainly not the case here. Nergaal (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Describing it as a terror attack is consistent with what the reliable sources are calling it. -- de Facto (talk). 19:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I've reset the first sentence to how it was before this discussion started. Let's see if we can agree the wording before changing it again. -- de Facto (talk). 19:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So, with the model of car, you ignored the consensus and edit warred to your preferred version. For this point, you want to edit war to revert back to a point that has constantly changed since the article was set up, just to get to your preferred version. That sort of shifting standard to getyour own was just doesn't sit well with me. - The Bounder (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Bounder: no, I'm just following BRD. As we have not yet reached a consensus on what the wording of the first sentence should be changed to, it should stay as it was just before this discussion started. And no, the current version is not necessarily my preferred version, it is exactly the version that was in place directly before this discussion (and associated edit warring) started - please try to assume good faith. -- de Facto (talk). 20:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, you've edit warred to a piece of text that has been changing since day one (and it's not been BRD - it's been more like BRERDERDEDBBE, and taking it back to the text of a day of so ago utterly ignores the changing focus of the police and news reports. Good work. You also edit warred over the car model, utterly against consensus and with as little justification, except to get your own way. I alwaystry and assume GF, but when I see people ignoring consensus and BRD at one point, then desparately trying to claim it the next, I'm afraid it gets a little tarnished. - The Bounder (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @The Bounder: there is no consensus on this wording yet, so one cannot ignore it, and that is why the text should stay as was. If a consensus is reached then the text should be changed. It is as simple as that. -- de Facto (talk). 20:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You justify your rather shabby behaviour just how you want. To pick a random version of a constantly moving piece of text and force a poor version on it is sub-optimal, particularly given your actions forcing a particular wording on the car model, while utterly ignoring the consensus. I have no desire to continue with this, so please do not ping me on this again. - The Bounder (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • As I said, it is the wording exactly as it was when this discussion started, so not random at all. (BTW, If you want to make further accusations about the car model discussion and editing, please take it to an appropriate thread, but please double-check your recollection first, to save time going over old ground.) -- de Facto (talk). 21:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question I am neutral on this at the moment, as I am not 100% sure where policy actually falls on this one, I'm still researching. I just want to ask a question. Where is the line drawn with what the media calls something? In cases of BLP, if the media says, "Joe ran up behind a man, shooting him in the back." we cannot use that information, because the official account is determined by a court of law, and we must use that after a conviction is secured. So in cases like this, do we need an "official" account of it being terrorism? Or can the media classify it as such and we use it?  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 19:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The question of whether or not it's a terrorist attack isn't down to the media, or even to the government, to determine. It's the law enforcement system (i.e. the police and prosecutors) who decide that; it dictates how they investigate it and what charges they bring. So for the purposes of this article, the only source we need to consider on the question of whether it was terrorism or not is the investigating authority, in this case the Metropolitan Police. And in fact, they do specifically call Masood a "terrorist" [2] and his action a "terrorist attack".[3] Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Prioryman, I was about to post your second link here myself. Just to point out to others, it's late on 28th March that the Met says "last Wednesday's terrorist attack" (ie 6-ish hours ago). I am also neutral except I oppose 'fudging' the issue with 'terror attack'. Pincrete (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Does a police force's news service count as police or news? The author of the story said that part, not a spokesman. Maybe the author is inherently a spokesman? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, it counts as the 'press spokesman' for the Met, it doesn't have to 'please its readers'. It is capable of making errors, but is not likely to be 'making things up'. .... ps the general view below was that 'armed' was necessary, it is the sort of distinction always made in UK, where few police are armed. Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I missed that discussion on "armed". My bad. Good to know about the Met press. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I think on reflection, the 'removers' of -ist were too 'quick off the mark' (inc me), there is nothing inconsistent in saying "we believe this was an attack intended to send a political message" but ... "we haven't worked out yet what that message was supposed to be (and don't wish to speculate)". Pincrete (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Why does nobody insist on confusing alcohol with alcoholism, nations with nationalism, sex with sexism or class with classism? Why is it always only terror and terrorism? Are people literally scared stupid by newspapers? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe because alive people can be arrested for suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts but already dead people can be assumed to have undergone a terrorist attack? Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. Are you saying it's OK to make stuff up for dead people because they won't mind? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
You mean it is ok to "make stuff up" for living people just to put them under arrest? Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I only meant I didn't know what you meant by "already dead people can be assumed to have undergone a terrorist attack". And I don't get what the arrested people have to do with this. Nobody should make up or assume anything without evidence, whether about someone alive or dead. Even articles about inorganic matter are better with established facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Head + head = bang! If we want to stick to facts, then we should say something along the lines of ...widely reported by the media as a terror(ist) attack... That way, we aren't putting our own biases into the article, but leaving the reader in no doubt where the label came from. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's the Met's official information office using the term 'terrorism', not simply the press, so if we attribute, it should be them not "the media". Most press refer to "terror attack". Pincrete (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not "fringe", but it's an exceptional claim, from a self-published source with a conflict of interest, contrary to the mainstream media and its own other statement about no known motives. We're not just writing the word, we're linking it to an article which says terrorism is done for political, religious or ideological aims. And then say his aims are concurrently unknown. It makes no sense, and so at least shouldn't be in Wikipedia's voice. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
That 'self-published source', is where everyone is getting their info at the moment (except trivia, "he was always a nice man"). It's the official Met information site, almost certainly part of the same press dept. that feeds journalists. Yes, they have a conflict of interest, they only want us to know what they want us to know at this time, but they are the best we have at present on the state of the investigation. The description of the Jo Cox murder as a 'terrorist' crime in 'background' is much more tenuous. I suggest below a footnote to attribute 'terrorist' to the Met. Pincrete (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Given that it's being treated as an act of Islamic terrorism both domestically and internationally then we should clearly treat it as such as well. Scotland Yard's current chaotic position on the matter notwithstanding (which may be some form of political correctness gone amuck, which isn't without precedent unfortunately). The only thing truly uncertain at this moment in time is whether it was a lone wolf, affiliated ad hoc effort, or full fledged attack by an established terrorist network. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ceannlann gorm: can you list some of the RSs that support your view here please, most of the recent ones I've seen do not appear to say that. -- de Facto (talk). 20:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi de Facto. All the major British and Irish newspapers today were still using the terms 'terrorist' and/or 'terrorist attack' in reference to the Westminster attack though Brexit generally knocked coverage off the front pages. BBC, ITV, Sky News, and CNN were also still referring to it as a terrorist attack when last I checked, while also using the term 'terror attack' at times. And for something within the last few hours here's something from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ceannlann gorm: yes I've seen those reports and none of them call it "Islamic terrorism". That is the view you expressed above, and which I was asking for RS support for. -- de Facto (talk). 21:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi again. Where the media has in the last 48hrs directly referred to the nature of the attack it has been either as Islamic terrorism (including notably The Independent; historically it's been more circumspect about the nature of such attacks but definitely not this time, though it is still also using that term interchangeably with the more general term 'terror attack' e.g. here) or else Islamic-inspired. By the way the BBC seemed to be the only other major outlet still using the term 'terror attack' to describe the attack, as of yesterday (March 31st). In some articles where the nature of the attack isn't directly mentioned, the motivations of the perpetrator and his suspected accomplices has been the subject of debate, though seemingly all starting with the premise that Islamic extremism played a major part in them. The 'Lone manic rather than Lone wolf' theory that was making the rounds a few days ago appears to have been conclusively dropped by the mainstream media as a dead end, as has the earlier 'Racism rather than Religion' theory, though a few outlets still speculate that racism might have been a contributing factor towards his apparent radicalisation. It seems that most of the media speculation at the moment is once again focused on just what involvement ISIS or other major terrorist groups had with Khalid Masood. A fair few articles mention the attack in somewhat of a 'guilt by association' manner which indirectly links the Westminster attack to efforts to counter suspected Islamic plots and the plotters/support networks behind them both in Britain and abroad.

Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article you cite from The Independent is an opinion piece on intelligence sharing post-Brexit, not an authoritative news item on Masood's motivation. Even then, it does not call the Westminster attack "Islamic terrorism". And further, even if it had, we have a more authoritative source, namely the police. We have no reason to be concerned with "most of the media speculation". Why the urge to go beyond the most authoritative source? Some here have said such as "it's not hard to guess" and "it seems clear" etc. etc. Wikipedia is not about your, my, the media's, or anyone else's best guess. There is plenty here for those so inclined to make their own inferences regarding motivation, it is not our place to prematurely confirm those inferences. When and if the police call it, it will be reflected here. Captainllama (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Image sandwiching

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please try and avoid image sandwiching. Unlike the extraordinary claim in this edit summary, the MoS does advise against it (in MOS:IMGLOC). And no, the FA linked in the summary didn't have image sandwiching in all browsers, only those people using wider screen browsers. On smaller screens and tablets there was no,sandwiching at that FA. In this article on a smaller screen there is a thinish column of text, which is best avoided. (And if an image drops into a lower section, either move it or get rid of it: the two large police vehicles do not provide any encyclopaedic information - it looks more like a newspaper shot.) – The Bounder (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge Khalid Masood to 2017 Westminster attack

Latest comment: 7 years ago128 comments73 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge. The consensus both here, and in our policies, is clear: The article of the attacker falls under WP:BLP1E (per WP:BDP), and is therefore found unsuitable for a stand-alone article. All contents in the Masood article are to be transplanted here, insomuch that they do not exist already. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that Khalid Masood be merged into 2017 Westminster attack as it currently a WP:BIO1E situation. If additional information shows up of independent notability, it can be split out later, but right now, it should be a redirect and not an article -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • As for WP:BIO1E, note that it includes the sentence "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Thi implications of that should be obvious. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
He is dead now, and his profile will soon get much lower with time, as with the 2005 London bombers. He was even less "notable," prior to the event, than they were, being a spontaneous lone actor (as far as is known). All the material in the article can be retained, if not redundant after the merge.--71.36.99.131 (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I meant WP:BIO1E (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Neutralitytalk 19:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Also adding per WP:PERPETRATOR.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, if we're judging that this particular extension does not count, then we may need to reconsider whether WP:BIO1E is really serving our needs. By all reasonable standards, an article for the suspect should not need to exist, as all relevant information should fit in this article (and indeed does for the vast majority of "minor" terrorist attacks like this one). ansh666 18:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Millions of people have lengthy criminal pasts, and millions more are known to police. That's not worth an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Billions of people don't drive a car thru people, stab a police officer, cause the evacuation of the Prime Minister, Parlaiment to be sequestered, a COBR meeting, and a phone call from the President of the United States. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Of course not. But that stuff is already covered here. A standalone bio has nothing more to add, beside minutia that only matters as context to this. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Although none of them raise the bar past 1E (inclusion is not notability and all that). My final thoughts on the matter is that the event is not significant enough (with all respect to those who were injured or lost their lives) currently for the suspect to have his own article - looking at a couple other attack articles, only truly massive and world-changing ones like September 11 attacks have separate articles for perpetrators who were not already notable beforehand. This can obviously change as the investigation proceeds, but for now I still don't think we should have one. I've updated my comment above. ansh666 19:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a bad point, and if it had been made earlier I might have agreed. But most of the editors here are citing WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, or WP:SINGLEEVENT for reasons for merging, when it's obvious that those policies specifically allow cases like this, for reasons I have already listed. Something has gone wrong here. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It's called the bandwagon effect; people see something that seems to make sense and then pile on without investigating further. Guilty as charged.   ansh666 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I learn something new every day: thank you. And now I must do some work   Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Speaking as one of those who might have got his BLPs mixed up with his BIOs, nonetheless, I was perfectly clear in my mind (as I suspect others were), that no useful purpose was served by duplicating the little information currently available about the attacker. Nor are there any indications at present that sufficient info is likely to ever be available to justify. When that changes, and when the size of this article warrants it, then ....... . WP:BURO also applies here. Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what you're attributing my comment to. I'm opposed to merging as this person is notable enough for an independent article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes that is what I said, that the subject wasn't notable enough to stand as an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I never typed that so that's not my comment. --Oakshade (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Whatever, I've struck out that part of my comment if that makes things clearer. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Except for Mateen, who perpetrated the deadliest shooting in U.S. history, all of your examples survived their terrorist attack or plot. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hassan Abdi Dhuhulow — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose pace some opinions above, this guy is anything but one of the usual suspects in this kind of crime: 1.) Police suspect that they do not yet know his birth name; 2.) he is a convert to Islam; 3.) he has a string of prior convictions (non-terrorism related); 4.) and this is an extremely high profile crime. all of these story lines will be followed up by journalists, then revisited by academics, commentators and other writers, probably producing an unwieldy volume of material. Let's leave it as 2 article for now; if it turns out not to be very long, we can revisit and merge. There's no rush.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge notable.--Neo (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The attack is more noteworthy than the perpetrator, also if everyone who commits a crime like this is going to get a Wikipedia article, then more people will start doing it. Reli source (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per BLP1E as well as the fact this is the common outcome with all attackers - The scum is only known for this attack and not much else so better off merged. –Davey2010Talk 21:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah my apologies I know in the past on a few articles the consensus was more or less always to merge the attacker articles so simply assumed this was the common outcome, As I'm incorrect I've struck it out, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:ONEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The subject does not meet WP:ONEEVENT. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The example given of a 'highly significant' event is Gavrilo Princip. The significance of his single event was in a league of its own, but that isn't the main point. If we'd all been around editing WP in 1914, we 'mergers' would still be arguing to merge, and we'd be right, because in 1914, it would have been impossible to foresee either the significance of the event, nor how much material would eventually emerge about Princip. Are the opposers able to foresee that this attack will STILL be seen as 'highly significant' a year or more from now, or that very much of interest about the perp is EVER going to emerge? Pincrete (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
That's why we should wait and assess this later, it's too soon to gauge the historical notability of the individual at this moment, as I stated above. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:SINGLEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The subject does not meet WP:SINGLEEVENT. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I explicitly disclaim you on this point; in the context of this guideline he did not start a world war, he didn't even particularly disrupt London all that much, about the same as a car accident. While it's worth an article, the event itself isn't really even so very highly significant, it's not going to lead to any actions that weren't ongoing, and there's nothing else otherwise particularly notable about him; he hasn't and will not have a lengthy trial, he didn't publish any influential document about his beliefs, he wasn't notable online before this. He fails WP:SINGLEEVENT, in the context of Wikipedia he is not an article.GliderMaven (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
GliderMaven I disagree about the disruption - stopping a government, locking down parliament for hours and having the PM removed for safety is much more disruption than a car accident. Terrorism and murder very different long term affects to accidents. An attack on a sitting parliament, however small, is significant. A failed plot to blow up parliament is still celebrated centuries later. Masood was no Guy Fawkes though. Widefox; talk 09:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
WP:SINGLEEVENT states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The subject does not meet WP:SINGLEEVENT. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's better to leave this event as an article. The traitors page should cover his background and this one should be handling only the event. --Luigi Boy ルアイヂ ボイ talk 15:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support WP:BIO1E Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support The terrorist would have all of the notability of a pebble outside of the context of the attack (if everybody with a criminal background got an article, Wikipedia would be inundated); he deserves an article from neither a notability perspective nor an ethical perspective. Benjitheijneb (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support As per what others have said; there is adequate​ enough information about his life in the main article. SaucyJimmy (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose WP:1E clearly states that " the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." It seems pretty obvious that his role was paramount and that the event was significant. Even when terrorist attacks of this nature are proliferating, the event remains significant. I may understand the urge to de-emphasize events like this one, which are designed with the intention of calling attention and becoming notable, and thus spreading a sense of general terror. Still, this event is significant by any standard (WP:EVENT). Ivettedez (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support merge. This guy is always going to be one of those people notable for only one event and is never going to have larger significance. (If that were to change, unlikely as it seems now, the history of the page about him will still be there and its content can be resurrected.) – Athaenara ✉ 20:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge I can see credible argument on both sides. However, the policy-based argument seems to favour retaining a separate article for the perpetrator. WP:1E states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role". I can't see how anyone can seriously cite WP:BIO1E to argue in favour of a merge. I am also concerned by the enormous number of pure votes above, some of which fail to advanced even one word of argument. That is not how we form consensus on this project. AusLondonder (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Assassination is murdering a prominent person. If he'd had done that, there would be no question. On the contrary, he just murdered a few people, and WP:BIO1E applies which states to cover the event, not the person. There's nothing particularly interesting about him. Ultimately the point of an article is if there's something important to write about him, but there doesn't seem to be.GliderMaven (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
GliderMaven If he had murdered a prominent person what "important" or "interesting" things would be need to be written about him which currently do not? AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Usually more. But it's not even necessarily about how much needs to be written, it's about how much more likely he would be considered independently notable by the editors. Otherwise, in Wikipedia the default position is that you put everything on one page, and that's whats already been done, and this is still a small page, it's only 14k of readable text, splitting it is pointless.GliderMaven (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
GliderMaven WP:BIO1E does not just state cover the event, not the person, but "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Looking at other terrorist incidents in London (WP:OTHERSTUFF), smaller scale ones don't have bios, larger ones do, so this seems on the edge. Widefox; talk 09:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Many of those supporting the merge are letting their heart rule the head. Notable. It's a good article with personal info that would be lost or bogged down if merged.78.147.190.30 (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
— 78.147.190.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Not that WP:Other stuff exists should be used with caution and does not immediately guarantee notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that the guideline/policy has been applied inconsistently, and also that as time passes some of these may start to pass WP:GNG (especially if they are still alive and go to trial, like several of those you mention above), while at the initial stages of investigation there is not likely to be much coverage independent of the events themselves. For more examples see the VPP discussion. ansh666 19:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
AusLondonder: The key distinction is that Roof and the younger Tsarnaev both survived the attack, went to trial, and were sentenced to death. The lengthy trial (in Roof's case two different trials), sentencing, appeals etc. provides additional content that stretches beyond the attack itself. The elder Tsarnev died in the attack, but he also was implicated in a separate notable crime, the 2011 Waltham triple murder, so WP:SINGLEEVENT doesn't apply. Mateen also perpetrated the deadliest shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history; the investigation led to the indictment of his wife. So none of these cases are analogous to this one. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The best argument for a merge IMHO, is the present Khalid Masood article, luckily it hasn't become a focus for PoV and speculative editing which so often happens with 'breaking news', but there is actually more info about him here, better organised and attributed and probably more complete. The few facts not included here could easily fit. We may know tons more in the coming weeks and months, but maybe this is all there is to know! Pincrete (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
AusLondonder Re: "What is the difference?", I don't think we can or should decide the difference on the basis of our evaluation of whether an event is "highly significant" while it is unfolding. It's borderline grotesque to start asking whether multiple murders in a gay bar in Orlando, comparatively small numbers in a very prominent space in London, or individual assasinations in Sarajevo in 1914 or Dallas in 1963(?) or killings in a school in wherever are 'more significant'. The same part of 'single event' that uses the "highly significant event" advice, also recommends considering incorporating the individual inside the event, when size and 'content appropriate-ness' allow. I was one of those who opposed a seperate article for Mateen, at the time. 'His' page became a focus for all the wild theories and speculation about him, which there were a lot of. I revisited it today, the article does fulfil some purpose NOW, it records all the speculation and basically says that almost no evidence has been found for any of it, while the most outrageous parts have gone altogether. It also emerged with Mateen that he had been given a licence as a private security guard in pretty dodgy circumstances. This stuff might not be suitable for the event page ... so, perhaps I was wrong then, anyway, the 'keepers' won the non-vote-vote. IMO, if substantial relevant biog info does not emerge about Masood, a seperate article serves little purpose. The big difference should be the need dictated by amount of info and aptness for the event article. Pincrete (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge from/to banners

As this is probably a high traffic article at present, I've removed the merge from/to banners from this and the Khalid Masood articles. I haven't done any clean-up/merging. Pincrete (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Merger

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Per [5] it was determined that a merge is to be done. But the merge tags have been deleted without anyone carrying out the merge. Can someone who can edit a protected page (which this article is, since it carries the lock template) carry out the merger? Or if not willing, please restore the merge tags, since the merger has yet to be carried out (though a consensus has been reached to merge) -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge done. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed both banners, and left a note here. I could not see any substantive material about Masood that needed to be merged, but I thought other editors should take a 'second look', hence my 'remove but not merge'. The 'final state' of the Masood article is here. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Motive update

Latest comment: 7 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

@WWGB: Care to elaborate your reason for reverting me? Don't you agree that terrorist attacks motivated by Islamic extremism (that is, Jihadism, as the source states), is terrorism? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't. Masood's intention of "waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East" is not the same as terrorism, which is intent to provoke fear or terror. There is no evidence that Masood wanted to create terror, he just wanted to get even. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@WWGB: Politically motivated violence with the intent to cause harm to civilians (such as driving a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge) is terrorism. The rest of the article also already describes the attack as a terrorist attack, and so do most of the sources talking about intent. The UK also has a clearer definition of what a terrorist attack is. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 05:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The 7/7 bombers also had the same stated motives (which boiled down to Islamic extremism), but the act was terrorism in the effect that it had (most probably an intentional effect) and the way it was done (non-state actors, to civilians, for political reasons). If you revert me again, please escalate by also removing this article (and the talk page) from terrorist-related categories, and change the article to read as if the attack wasn't terrorism. Then it is clearer when one of us calls for an RfC. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 06:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied it meets the definition of Islamic terrorism, but I am happy to wait for other editors to weigh in. WWGB (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Part of the article now says it is terrorism, and another part says the motive for this act (of terrorism) was Islamic extremism. Why not be consistent? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 12:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Terrorism isn't a motive, any more than murder or theft are motives. Pincrete (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Yes, that position agrees with my own. I think the dispute is over whether this fulfils the intent clauses in the definitions of terrorism. I argue that the new information present doesn't show that this isn't terrorism, and the security services (and the Independent) haven't released the full message. WWGB says there is not enough evidence to say that he did it to create terror - but the premeditated public killing of civilians is more than enough for me to say that the methods used, were used with the purpose of creating terror. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I disagree strongly, the fact that it is identified as terrorism, has no bearing on motive, any more that 'murder' has any bearing on motive. I think you are engaging in OR. Pincrete (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm only engaging in OR as much as WWGB is. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Pincrete: I really don't understand the opposition to labelling it as a terrorist act, motivated by Islamic extremism. The sources align with that explanation completely. Is that really OR? --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 15:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
How about that this is an anon security source that doesn't mention Islamic Extremism? It also gets some other facts wrong. Pincrete (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough on the first point. On the second, jihadism against the state or against a free society, is a direct synonym to violence motivated by Islamic extremism. On the third, I wonder which. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 19:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Nor does the source mention Jihadism, (which is not a synonym of Jihad) . Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have an actual quote? It seems like if he'd said, "I am waging jihad in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East", they'd have used that instead of paraphrasing. Sounds a bit unnatural to me, but maybe that's just how he wrote. Presuming it's exactly what he said, "waging jihad" sounds a little religious, but for the most part, it's simply vengeance. Tinged by Islam, but a universal concept and ostensibly the reason the West continues bombing in the first place.
That he chose to send this message encrypted to one anonymous person is about as opposite as it gets to the publicity a typical terrorist (or any sort of advocate) should seek, and he smoked more crack than a typical fundamentalist should smoke, but I suppose atypical disguises could be part of ISIS' master plan. It's not too farfetched for an outlet with a pro-coalition stance, but probably a stretch for Wikipedia to interpret The Independent's summary as suggesting anything more than retaliation. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The security source is anon, some claims have already been rejected by police (such as Masood having been radicalised in prison), it's also unclear when the message was 'read'. Pincrete (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The Independent refers to "eleven others", indicating the recipient was among those cleared as of April 1. Whether he was the 30-year-old held for five days isn't stated, but five days certainly jibes with "extensively questioned". It's possible the message was accessed through cyberninja after April Fool's Day, but it seems highly likely that would have prompted a rearrest. Barring secret arrests, it's fair to assume the message was read between March 26 and April 1. Less safe to assume it was nearer the beginning than the end, but I presume it was within twelve hours of arrest. Both because it's reasonable time for an innocent person to protest unlocking his phone and because it would turn this statement "ironic". InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Weird how "revenge" is too common to link, but "jihad" must be emphasized. Not enough that "terrorist attack" and "Islamism" already glow blue, I guess. Either both common terms should be linked or neither, I suggest. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 Westminster attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2017 Westminster attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Use of the noun "attack" to describe the event

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This discussion has been moved to WP:VPM#Use of the word "attack" in various article titles in order to have all 20-30 discussions in one place. Please go there to participate. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have questions about the widespread use of the noun "attack" to describe this event. These questions similarly concern other accounts of violence where the use of the word "attack" seems related to the country of origin or religion of the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators. I will therefore try to raise this concern elsewhere as well. (For this reason, please bear with me if you see this comment elsewhere and it seems repetitive.)

My concern is roughly as follows. First, calling such an incident an attack uses the register of war to characterize the event. (Consider for example the widespread use of the expression _armed attack_ in the UN Charter and in other instruments treating the laws of war.) This is a very specific move and seems to me to be one of consequence in our understanding of such an event. This is to say that the use of war as an animating backdrop into which to integrate our understanding of the event is a very specific choice, and by no means the only option at our disposal. Using the noun "attack" and the backdrop of war to characterize an individual event assimilates it to the plane of collective action. Assimilating an individual act to wider collective action is a very specific interpretive choice, and one that is not disinterested. For example, characterization of an event as a crime does not generally carry the suggestion of collective action. It might be objected that characterizing such an event as a crime is not apt because of the apparent political motivation of the violence considered. Options other than imposing a frame of either war or collective action onto our understand of an event are nonetheless available. Consider our understanding of the Oklahoma City bombing or the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, for example. No one doubts the political motivation underlying either event, yet our understanding of neither of these events is animated by the suggestion of either war or collective action more generally. If it is wished to indicate a wider conspiracy underlying an individual event, such a conspiracy should be indicated explicitly, not by means of suggestion or innuendo. In a dispassionate account with ambitions of being held out as a reliable encyclopedia article, collective action should be demonstrated by the evidence provided. Collective action should not be an unsubstantiated, hollow spectre that looms over every corner of such an account.

Second, even in the case that collective action--specifically, war--is chosen and adopted as the animating register for the discussion of this event, "attack" is a particularly odd choice in characterizing it. To repeat what's already stated above, both war--and more generally, collective action--are specific interpretative choices for our understanding of this event, neither is obvious or necessary. If such an interpretative choice is adopted, such a choice should be explicit and, ideally, demonstrated by the evidence--deserving a discussion of its own. Now, in the case that collective action and war is chosen as a rubric in which to understand this event, "attack" carries an added suggestion. "Attack" suggests the initiation of hostilities. Once again the claim being made is not explicit, but is glossed over by means of suggestion and innuendo. Again, one suspects that the claim comes by way of suggestion and innuendo because it would collapse if it were made explicitly. The Pentagon and Whitehall began bombing Afghanistan in October 2001, Iraq in March 2003, Syria in September 2014, and Somalia since at least October 2016. French and affiliated NATO forces began their occupation of Afghanistan in December 2001, and of Libya in March 2011. (France has also announced a bombing campaign of the Sahel region in August 2014, that includes parts of Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Cameroon, Central African Republic, and Ethiopia.) One is by no means obligated to understand an individual act of violence in the United States, UK, or France in the context of "war" that includes these military campaigns singularly or collectively; as already emphasized, taking such an act to be one of war is the result of a specific interpretive choice. However, in the case that this route is selected--and an act in the United States, Britain, or France is taken to be part of a war--it seems highly misleading to further portray such an act with an incipient or initiating flavor that "attack" suggests. This portrayal is again glossed over without discussion and seemingly counter to all evidence: if an individual event is understood as a collective action that is part of a wider war, using language that suggests or attributes an initiating character to such an event seems highly dubious when that event takes place 15+ years into the supposed war. Characterizing such an event as an attack seems to want it both ways: to push an account of the event as a collective action that is an act of war, and to at the same time avoid any discussion of that wider war ("attack" with its suggestion that t=0; as opposed to "response," usually reserved for justifications of the ensuring state-violence).

Use of the word "attack" to describe such an individual act thus seems to me highly incoherent. It is an interpretive choice that on the one hand suggests collective responsibility for an individual act of violence, and does so by means of innuendo rather than explicitly (for doing so explicitly would seem dubious in the absence of specific evidence that is often simply not there to be found). And on the other hand, substantive discussion of the wider war being suggested as the animating context in which the event occurs is avoided; "attack" carries with it the suggestion (again, pure innuendo unlikely to survive serious discussion) that the event has an initiating character, glossing over the possibility that such an event could be the response to something.

For these reasons, this word does not seem worthy to form the basis of a discussion which aims to be neutral or dispassionate. Rather it seems highly politicized, and on even a moment's inspection, a tendentious characterization that summarily assimilates an individual event to a collective act of war, while at the same time denying the continuity of the very war being supposed ("attack" bearing the suggestion that event initiates, rather than responds to anything). Moreover, one wonders if the term carries slanderous suggestions; the spectre of collective responsibility cast by the word seems particularly given to scapegoating. "Conspiracy theorist" is a term of derision often used to characterize the speculations of those that suppose collective action or a plot in the absence of good evidence. Well, in addition to its being unthinking newspeak--in its current, and now longstanding, uniform use--"attack" is nothing if not a term of the conspiracy theorist. Collective action is supposed in the absence of evidence. The fear-mongering of supposed collective action gives rise to the war-mongering of suggested collective responsibility.

The innuendo and spectres that one might expect to litter Pentagon briefings should not provide the basis for an encyclopedia article that aims to be disinterested. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

'Attack' is the common name for an event of this kind which (broadly speaking) dictates our usage. The word is neither inherently collective, nor inherently militaristic (an attack on Naom Chomsky, is not likely to be either). How should this event be described in your opinion? Such that the language is neutral and informative. Pincrete (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. But consider how the word is being used in the relevant context. If I raise caution about an account that claims to be fair and objective in advance of a trial in which an individual man accused of grisly violence is summarily described as a "savage," it might also be objected that "savage" can have many meanings, some of them positive. "Savage wit," it might be said, "means that someone is very smart." But clearly the article in characterizing such a man as a savage in advance of such a trial is not calling the accused man a genius.
Attack has an established meaning in international law. It at once (1) indicates an act of war and (2) attributes responsibility to the initiation of that war. It is certainly true that "attack" is used in other senses, among them figurative. ("An attack on Noam Chomsky" would indicate, for example, either a refutation of the views of Noam Chomsky, or a denunciation of the character of Noam Chomsky.) But I have never seen an example in English of the word "attack" coupled with a city or place where the word "attack" was not used in its international legal sense to (1) indicate a collective action, one of war, and (2) suggest responsibility for the initiation of such a war (usually in justification of ensuing military action, often deemed a "response"). Alfred Nemours (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You offer no alternative word for a series of non-specific (ie not shooting/bombing etc), or mixed, violent acts. Words like 'savage', 'barbaric' etc. are inherently evaluative, and would only be used by us as quotes. I am not persuaded that the word 'attack' inherently carries the associations you attach to it. It is simply IMO one of those words (like campaign?) whose precise meaning is established by context. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
like Stonewall Attack, and King's Indian Attack are clearly contrary to the Geneva Conventions. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_Westminster_attack/Archive_3&oldid=1184251294"